EPA Science Advisor Minimizes Air Pollution Risks

Tony Cox, appointed as head of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee by Scott Pruitt, published a study in 2017 which questions the harmful effects of air pollution. The study was funded, in part, by the American Petroleum Institute. API was allowed to proofread and edit the study before publication.
www.sciencemag.org...



At a Wednesday meeting of the Committee in which EPA regulations were reviewed:

Tony Cox – a consultant and statistician who has worked for the industry and criticized EPA standards – questioned whether soot from coal plants and cars can be directly blamed for asthma and cardiopulmonary problems.

www.theguardian.com...


This "science advisor", is not. Like Pruitt, he is a swamp dweller.

Cleanest air. Cleanest water. How much longer?

The process for updating air standards would normally take about three years, Frey said, but the EPA wants to shorten that to one year. Where there were 42 experts examining the science on air pollution and specifically on particulate pollution and smog, there are now seven, he noted.

Oh dont worry, I'm sure this one will go through the same peer review process every other paper does.

We all know how thoroughly that happens.

a reply to: Bluntone22

You seem to be missing the point. The chief of the EPA's science advisory committee is not a scientist and has close ties to energy producers. It is this committee which drives air pollution regulations.

We all know that there is negative effects from power plants and car pollution. Much of the carbon from those could be absorbed by the trees and converted by microbes back into the earth. That is not the case with polution from the Jets these days, more of that carbon goes up.

I believe we need to quit poluting the world, but I do not think the tax that they are passing which is paid by the working class is appropriate. I know their philosophy, make fuel more expensive, but taxing people and using that money for other things than fixing problems is not the right solution. Make things to last. Quit promoting people to buy new stuff and try to eliminate as much waste as possible. Do not destroy the earth with fracking that is causing methane release and search for better ways to get it than this method. Work on finding suitable energy producing methods, not the overpriced solar panels that the friends of the politicians and contributors to the campaigns are pushing. Being green just means turning down the thermostat and not heating all your house if you do not use it. The rich and elites, especially the people pushing the climate agenda probably waste more fuels than anyone.

Taxing people who are barely making it is not the right way.

a reply to: rickymouse

This is about particulate pollution. Not CO2. Cox doesn't think that soot in the air is bad for you.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bluntone22

You seem to be missing the point. The chief of the EPA's science advisory committee is not a scientist and has close ties to energy producers. It is this committee which drives air pollution regulations.

which kind of begs the question, why are you pretending to be surprised by this?

a reply to: network dude

which kind of begs the question, why are you pretending to be surprised by this?

Surprised?

a reply to: Phage

Yeah, not defending him or his position.
I believe he is a statistician.
It would be interesting to see how and where his stats were acquired.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse

This is about particulate pollution. Not CO2. Cox doesn't think that soot in the air is bad for you.

The soot from a power plant can be bad for you but most of the power plants are decently clean. We have two coal plants in a local town and there is not much coming out of them, the mines here polute way more than they do. They can scrub the emmissions to get them even better, but that would cost a lot more. So what do they do, we all got a thirty percent increase in our bills on the company we got to switch over to half natural gas. Breaking a bond creates energy, usually the carbon bond is broken and with natural gas, there is less carbon but not that much less to account for the extra fifty bucks a month we pay.

The new emission standards they are supposedly impelementing soon will require a big expense to the coal plants with little actual participate savings here, so they chose to go gas, which is way less secure if something happens to the gas lines feeding this area. A simple earthquake can break the lines and all power and heating for most houses will be out causing a major disaster within a week in the winter. The transmission lines could not handle all of our energy needs coming into the area, they are too small. I see a very insecure situation occurring.

a reply to: rickymouse

The soot from a power plant can be bad for you but most of the power plants are decently clean.

If regulations are relaxed that would change.

The new emission standards they are supposedly impelementing soon

Which new standards would that be?

Cox denied that API influenced his work and said the organization did not suggest any substantive changes. The fossil fuel group offered "some minor copy editing suggestions on punctuation and my use of 'relation' vs. 'relationship,'" Cox said.

"Neither in effect nor in actual fact did they interfere with, shape, or direct my findings or the conduct of my research in any way," Cox said in an email to E&E News. "My research was complete before I drafted the paper, and nothing of substance changed thereafter except in response to journal reviewer comments and my own re-reading for clarity. My research is and always have been my own, and I do not accept outside interference."

a reply to: Propagandalf

Pruitt declared that scientists who received EPA grants had conflicts of interest, while those who are paid by polluting industries deserved a louder voice. That's when he named Cox to lead the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.

www.sciencemag.org...

Pretty loud voice.

But maybe he won't recommend relaxing particulate rules.

I sometimes wonder if we should allow particulate pollution over pm50 and no lower as its the smallest of particles that kill by entering the bloodstream through the lungs We would all see the dirt from chimneys vehicles aircraft ships and so many other "clean" exhausts and perhaps be surprised where the pollution comes from the problem we have at the moment is air born emissions look clean yet they are deadly
I understand your point Phage that the very group of people that make particulate pollution are regulating it I truly belive we are living in the worst of times for both common sense morals and greed
I certainly don't have any answers but so wish things were very different

Trumps EPA is a bad joke. Their top environmental official for the Southeast Trey Glenn was arrested for Felony Ethics Charges recently. He is another coal company crony previously working against environmental cleanup that the Trump admin hired to oversee the epa.

We lead the world in emission reductions and have for a while, so there is that which is often overlooked for purely political reasons.

The Left want to eliminate coal overnight as a solution, the Right wants to ease regulations. IMO they are both wrong and a more moderate approach is the rational choice if you remove partisan dishonesty from the equation.

Economically for our country, we would be harmed less if we worked with the coal industry and found a way to make conversion of power plants to be cleaner affordable through incentives and phase them out slowly.

Obama's plan was to nuke the coal industry and ignore the economic damage. Now the plan is to cut back on regulations. I see neither making genuine sense. Both ideas are overkill and purely partisan crap. Logic has left the building on this issue.

Why can't we have straight honest people in these epa positions?

It seems like we either have these extremist ecofascists like we saw under Obama, or we oil industry insiders.

I definitely prefer less regulations wherever possible, but having Bagdad Bob in there doesn't really help either.

a reply to: rickymouse

A simple earthquake can break the lines

How do you think the coal gets there? Are railroads untouched by earthquakes?

The guy that says particulates in the air are not bad would probably freak right out if I lit up a cigarette in the same room as him

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse

The soot from a power plant can be bad for you but most of the power plants are decently clean.

If regulations are relaxed that would change.

The new emission standards they are supposedly impelementing soon

Which new standards would that be?

I don't know, they were going to close one of our power plants here because they had to comply in the next few years. We got a temporary stay on it but the one is closing maybe next year, to comply plus still keep a power plant here for the one that is completely going off line, they are putting in a four engine recipro natural gas unit. The hauled the big units in pieces from Lanse this last summer, there were pictures of them on trailers at one of the roundabouts in Ishpeming.

Whatever they were suggesting to do it must have cost more than the eighty million bucks or so they paid for those engines and the building. We get bits and pieces of the information from the news here, mandatory changes that cause big expenditures. The cost of those new recipro engines with their life expectancy will mean our electric bills will stay way higher for the future. Thanks Obama, our electric bills were already way too high.

The upcoming new regulations are the problem, not the ones all ready in place. More smoke comes out of the mine stacks than the power company stacks here. More smoke comes out of a small foundry than comes out of the coal power plant. The smoke from the coal plant is almost white and the beaches are right there, no smell of smoke at all, no dust on the cars when you park there. The marina is right next to the power plant, there is no staining on the boats. If we are talking particulates, where are they, the water is nice and clear there. I know there is some polution, but if you take all the destruction from the uranium plants and the environmental impact of refining the uranium, that has a big impact too.

Maybe Lake superior is nice and clean there because of the carbon from the smoke, binding the stuff in the lake like activated charcoal does in your fish tank.

originally posted by: tinner07
a reply to: rickymouse

A simple earthquake can break the lines

How do you think the coal gets there? Are railroads untouched by earthquakes?

Well, the big ships drop it off and there is a pile there that lasts the whole winter. I am talking about everything freezing up in winter, we have a more secure energy supply here with the coal. Especially with two power plants here. The government had said preparedness was essential and they would not allow UP power to just close this plant because if something happened, they could tap this power. But the cost of future environmental laws put in during the Obama administration made these plants obsolete. Worst part is the engines replacing them are made in foreign countries, namingly Europe. Sounds like someone must have had to have a campaign favor fulfilled by Obama.